Friday, 7 July 2017

One
of the constant refrains from some quarters in relation to Brexit was that the
UK only ever signed up to an economic union – the Common Market – and not to a
political union of European nations.
Whilst it’s true that many people have long believed that (I’m not
convinced that those who signed the UK up to the EEC in the first place were
much more honest than the Brexiteers who’ve led us out), it was never true in
fact. There was always a political
element to the organisation; indeed, for the founders, it was always much more about
a political vision of a peaceful united Europe replacing the warring states of
the previous centuries.

In a
very real sense, economic union was more a means to an end than an end in
itself. Whilst there were some in the UK
who also signed up to that, the overwhelming majority of the UK’s politicians
have always appeared to treat membership on a more transactional basis: what we
get versus what we put in. That gulf in
understanding about the aims of membership is part of the reason for the
failure of the UK’s leaders to understand why they cannot have the economic
benefits whilst the UK puts itself outside the political arrangements. That is, ultimately, the basis for Barnier’s warning
yesterday, but the reactions in interpreting it as a threat or hostile action
serve only to underline that gulf in understanding.

But
it isn’t only with regard to our relationship with the EU that UK politicians
seek to reduce issues to economics, and see everything in terms of the pluses
and minuses of the balance sheet. The
same is true when it comes to the question of independence. In the UK context, there is always a demand
for Welsh and Scottish independentistas
to spell out precisely the economic consequences of independence, as though it
were the act of independence which changes things rather than the policies
pursued thereafter. That isn’t true
everywhere, however. Here’s
an interesting article by Iain Macwhirter of the Herald in Scotland, looking at
the situation of Slovenia and Slovakia, two other European countries which have
gained their independence in recent years.
The point which he makes very effectively is how little debate there was
about economics before those countries took the plunge and went their own way.

As
he puts it, “Ultimately, the case for
independence will always stand or fall on a nation’s desire for autonomy, not
marginal economic gain.” It’s a
point with which I entirely agree. Ultimately,
Wales and Scotland will become independent countries only when and if the
people of those countries want to be independent and the task of independentistas is to create that
desire. That doesn’t mean that the sort
of economic policy which different parties and groups would like an independent
Wales to follow has no part in the debate, but that will involve the sort of
choices which can only be made post-independence, and will to an extent at
least depend on the nature of post-independence relationships with England,
Scotland and the EU.

Post-independence
choices will also depend more on which politicians we choose to govern the
country than on the fact of independence itself, and there are more routes than
one to a successful future. The article
to which I linked discusses some of the economic decisions taken by Slovakia
and Slovenia. They’re not the only
options and they’re not examples which I’d particularly like to see Wales
follow. The point about independence is
that we would be free to make our own choices, and not be bound by those of
others. But the bigger point is that we
have to want to take that responsibility first – and currently, we’re far too
timid and frightened to do it, a situation which isn’t helped by a ‘national
party’ which basically accepts the economic constraints placed upon us by the
limited imagination and transactional bias of UK politics.

What
‘independence’ means varies over time. I
concur with Macwhirter’s conclusion (although I’d substitute Wales for
Scotland) when he says that “It is not
possible to envisage an independent Scotland that is not part of the EU, or in
a halfway house like Norway. And it is
equally very hard to see what future awaits Scotland as part of a UK that has
left Europe behind”, which is why I’ve always seen Brexit as more a political
question than an economic one.
Alternative futures await us, but only when we have the desire and
courage to pursue them.